It should be each person's own choice, until such a time that the person cannot make a choice and then it should be the decision of the person upon which the burden of care falls...or the legal guardian as determined by our current laws.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Much to the frustration of some people here, I'm going to stop short of giving a full ethical analysis to the question and just say that euthanasia should be handled the same way that suicide is handled in a society. That's not really an ethical decision, but a plea for consistency. And right now, in America, we're in danger of some serious inconsistency on this count: suicide is plainly illegal, while the legality of euthanasia is debated. It seems to me that a verdict in favor of euthanasia should also lead to a reconsideration of the legality of suicide; alternately, if we as a society hope to maintain the illegal status of suicide, that ought to color our judgement concerning euthanasia. Doesn't that seem reasonable?

I voted that it should be each person's own choice. Mad brings up an interesting point. At first, I was wondering if this was going to become a discussion of semantics. I considered the idea that euthanasia might just be a nicer word for suicide. I decided to look in the dictionary for the definitions of suicide and euthanasia. suicide-The intentional taking of one's own life.euthanasia- Painless, peaceful death.The difference, as I see it, is how the death is carried out. A painless, peaceful death seems more acceptable than just a suicide. A suicide can be and often is violent and painful. To many, the way in which someone dies greatly impacts the family that is left to deal with the loss. Many of us would rather our loved ones pass peacefully in their sleep, then die tragically.

tarav: The difference, as I see it, is how the death is carried out. A painless, peaceful death seems more acceptable than just a suicide. A suicide can be and often is violent and painful.

By that token, would you say that suicide is acceptable, so long as the manner of death isn't needlessly painful or violent? Would that hold the same even in the case of an otherwise healthy teenager?

There are a couple of ethical concerns surrounding the issue of euthanasia, and one of the differences between that and suicide, depending on the circumstances, is the question of volition. Suicide is always completely voluntary; euthanasia, on the other hand, is a term that can be used to describe a range of acts from consensual, assisted suicide to "mercy killings" of questionable relation to the will of the deceased. So one of the issues that someone exploring the ethics of euthanasia should be prepared to face is that of how closely the death conforms to the will of the subject.

Some of us have discussed that issue at length in recent months, though, so I won't go deeper into the subject than that unless others show interest.

I think that there are likely peripheral issues involved, most of them involved with attempted rather than successful suicide. For example, in cases of attempted suicide, the legal status of suicide is probably somehow instrumental in determining things like criminal negligence -- eg. when a parent attempts suicide, thereby threatening to abandon the child. More importantly, it allows prosecutors to try people in connection with suicides. That's fairly questionable in the case of simple assisted suicide, but I think we can all feel fairly certain that it's worthwhile when the assistant has been instrumental in the decision. In those cases, there may easily be some question as to whether or not the person would have resorted to suicide on their own, and we may be hard pressed to find any way to prosecute a person who has merely convinced another person to commit suicide, even though the act may be tantemount to murder.

And suicide laws may allow government institutions to hold failed attemptees, at least long enough to allow authorities to assess the mental stability of suicides. Which goes to the question of whether or not we have a legal or moral obligation to prevent suicides when it is clear that the person attempting to kill their self is operating on mental impairment.

But stepping away from the question of legality for a moment, what do you think of the ethicality of suicide? Is it ethically neutral? Is it always wrong? If the answer is neither, what are the criteria for determining the ethicality of any given act of suicide?

misterpessimistic: At that point...the individual has been beaten down so far that death is the only comfort. I wonder about the ethics of the factors that bring on this 'choice'.

With how many instances of suicide are you familiar, Mr. P? It isn't rationally sound to generalize every case on the strength of a few instances. People commit suicide for all sorts of reason, and the decisions is often one that they would not have made had the material situation been different. For some people, the decision to commit suicide is the result of a long, deliberate consideration. There are also people who have survived suicide attempts -- often despite their best efforts -- have sometimes gone on to live long lives, never again attempting to kill them selves. Others have committed suicide on a whim, or under chemical influence. To treat these cases as morally and ethically equivalent seems, to me, a grotesque simplification.

But it seems to me that rather than discuss the issue on its merits, you'd rather use a particular example to divert attention to the horrors of organized religion.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum

BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.